COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), RAIGAD versus M/S. FINACORD CHEMICALS (P) LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 4 S.C.R. 594 · Decided: 08-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015]4 S.C.R. 594 
A 
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), RAIGAD 
B 
v. 
MIS. FINACORD CHEMICALS (P) LTD. & ORS. 
(Civil A~ 
~al Nos. 1633-1638 of 2004) 
APRIL 08, 2015 
[ A.K. SIKRI AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] 
c 
Customs Act, 1962 - Import of alcohol - Demand of 
customs duty from the importers -
On the ground of 
misdeclaration and undervaluation and also alleged that 
import was unauthorized - Order of Department demanding 
differential duty with penalty for misdeclaration and 
D undervaluation, and for unauthorized import directed 
confiscation of goods and imposed fine - Appellate Tribunal 
held that there was no undervaluation and struck off the 
additional demand and penalty while upheld that import was 
unauthorized and the goods were liable for confiscation -
E However, reduced the amount of fine - Appeal by the 
assesees before High Court pending -
On appeal of 
Revenue to this Court held: Order of the Tribunal in deciding 
the issue of import price and in reducing the fine and penalty 
F are well reasoned and hence does not call for interference. 
Doctrine of unjust Enrichment - Applicability of -
To 
. refund of pre-deposit - Confis9ation of imported goods which 
were in custody of purchaser of the goods - On the grounds 
G that the goods were undervalued and the import was 
unauthorized - By interim order of the court, goods released 
on furnishing bank guarantee by the purchaser- By further 
order court directed that the purchaser shall be entitled to 
H 
594 
COMM. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), RAIGAD v. 
595 
FINACORD CHEMICALS (P) LTD. 
refund of the deposited amount, with 13% interest, if A 
ultimately he is held entitled to get back the deposited 
amount - After the order of Tribunal in the case against the 
importers that no additional duty was payable, application 
of the purchaser for refund of the amount -
Rejected 
invoking doctrine of unjust enrichment - In customs appeal, 
B 
High Court held that doctrine of unjust enrichment would be 
applicable in respect of demand of duty while it will not be 
applicable in respect of demand of fine - On appeal, held: 
Doctrine of unjust enrichment will not be applicable in the 
present case, as the deposit was as a condition for release C 
of the confiscated goods and not towards any customs duty 
- In view of the Circular dated 02.01.2002, doctrine of unjust 
enrichment would not be applicable to refund of pre-deposit 
- In view of the Circular dated 08.12.2004 refund of pre-
0 
deposit should be done immediately - Therefore, direction 
to refund the amount deposited by the purchaser with 13% 
interest -
Customs Act, 1962 -
s. 11 B -
Circular dated 
02.01.2002 issued by the Central Board of Excise and 
Customs - Circular No. 80213512004-CX dated 08.12.2004 E 
issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. 
Allowing the appeal Nos. 1633-1638/2004 and 5641 I 
2010 and dismissing the appeal No. 3410/2006, the Court 
HELD: Civil Appeal Nos. 1633-1638 of 2004: 
1. The CESTAT has rightly found that when the 
invoices are produced showing the purchase price of 
the goods in question and authenticity of these invoices 
F 
is not doubted by the Department, these will form as the G 
primary evidence in support of the contention of the 
respondents that the imported goods were purchased 
at UK pound 1.40 per bulk litre. Thus, there is no flaw 
in the reasoning of the CESTAT while deciding the issue 
H 
596 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 
A of import price. [Para 6] [600-C-D] 
2. The CESTAT has also given valid reasons for 
reducing the penalty and fine and the discretion 
exercised by the CESTAT was on valid considerations 
B and hence does not call for any interference. [Para 8] 
[601-E] 
3. It is clarified that the dismissal of the appeals 
would not impact in any way the appeal which is 
C preferred by the respondents-assessees and is pending 
in the High Court. The said appeal shall be decided by 
the High Court on its own merits. [Para 8] [601-F] 
Civil Appeal No. 6541 of 2010 
D 
1. The appellant had not imported the goods in 
question. But it had purchased the good from the 
tmporters. The dispute of under-invoicing was also qua 
the said two importers on the basis of which custom 
was claiming lesser payment of duty by the said 
E importers. In the adjudication proceedings, while 
imposing the duty against the said importers, a 
categorical finding was also recorded at the same time 
that the appellant had no role to play therein and was a 
bona fide purchaser

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.